§6.6 - Equitable Requirements

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§6.6 EQUITABLE REQUIREMENTS

Because specific performance is an equitable remedy, the plaintiff must prove to the court that equitable relief is appropriate.

(1) Inadequate remedy at law

As an equitable remedy, specific performance will not be granted if the plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law, such as damages. However, because real estate is considered unique, damages generally do not adequately compensate a purchaser for a seller's breach of a contract to sell specific land. Chan v. Smider, 31 Wn.App. 730, 644 P.2d 727 (1982); Egbert v. Way, 15 Wn.App. 76, 546 P.2d 1246 (1976); RESTATEMENT OF CONTRACTS §360 (1932). For example, in Crafts v. Pitts, 161 Wn.2d 16, 162 P.3d 382 (2007), the court held that the loss of adjacent acreage could not be adequately compensated with damages and that specific performance was an available remedy. In Cornish College of the Arts v.1000 Virginia Ltd. Partnership,158 Wn.App. 203, 242 P.3d 1 (2010),a tenant was granted specific performance of an option to purchase the leasedproperty that was across an alley from the tenant's theater building and waspart of a master plan to establish aconsolidated campus.

The same argument is generally not available for a seller of land, inasmuch as the seller has merely contracted to receive a sum certain in exchange for the sale of real property. Washington courts have nonetheless permitted sellers of real property to secure specific performance of their sales agreements. Anderson v. Wallace Lumber & Mfg. Co., 30 Wash. 147, 70 P. 247 (1902). Surprisingly, Washington courts have at the same...